<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes" ?>
<!DOCTYPE bugzilla SYSTEM "https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/page.cgi?id=bugzilla.dtd">

<bugzilla version="5.0.4"
          urlbase="https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/"
          
          maintainer="sysbot+bugzilla@w3.org"
>

    <bug>
          <bug_id>3783</bug_id>
          
          <creation_ts>2006-10-02 18:14:55 +0000</creation_ts>
          <short_desc>[FT] Tokenization: When to flow-through/flow-around markup?</short_desc>
          <delta_ts>2006-11-13 21:40:41 +0000</delta_ts>
          <reporter_accessible>1</reporter_accessible>
          <cclist_accessible>1</cclist_accessible>
          <classification_id>1</classification_id>
          <classification>Unclassified</classification>
          <product>XPath / XQuery / XSLT</product>
          <component>Full Text 1.0</component>
          <version>Working drafts</version>
          <rep_platform>PC</rep_platform>
          <op_sys>Windows XP</op_sys>
          <bug_status>CLOSED</bug_status>
          <resolution>FIXED</resolution>
          
          
          <bug_file_loc></bug_file_loc>
          <status_whiteboard></status_whiteboard>
          <keywords></keywords>
          <priority>P2</priority>
          <bug_severity>minor</bug_severity>
          <target_milestone>---</target_milestone>
          
          
          <everconfirmed>1</everconfirmed>
          <reporter name="Joaquin Delgado">joaquin.delgado</reporter>
          <assigned_to name="Joaquin Delgado">joaquin.delgado</assigned_to>
          
          
          <qa_contact name="Mailing list for public feedback on specs from XSL and XML Query WGs">public-qt-comments</qa_contact>

      

      

      

          <comment_sort_order>oldest_to_newest</comment_sort_order>  
          <long_desc isprivate="0" >
    <commentid>12236</commentid>
    <comment_count>0</comment_count>
    <who name="Joaquin Delgado">joaquin.delgado</who>
    <bug_when>2006-10-02 18:14:55 +0000</bug_when>
    <thetext>&gt;Issue: paragraphs and sentences (Test, mostly)
&gt;Sentence boundary detection is highly language-dependent and
&gt;relies on specific language and perhaps even vocabulary knowledge.
&gt;Paragraph boundaries ditto likewise, although in practice folks
&gt;put paragraph structure into their markup, so then the issue is
&gt;which markup counts as breaking paragraphs and which doesn&apos;t?
&gt;
&gt;Issue: flow-through/flow-around markup (Test, mostly)
&gt;Similarly: which markup indicates word breaks and which doesn&apos;t?
&gt;Which markup is flowed-around (e.g. footnotes) for phrase and
&gt;proximity matching?
&gt;
&gt;I call these two spec issues also only because it is weird that
&gt;we have query options for ignoring some nodes, but not for
&gt;specifying any of these other important facts.  For the record,
&gt;I think it is correct not to have them in the query, but I also
&gt;think putting ignored nodes into the query is a big mistake as
&gt;well.  I also think we need to acknowledge them in some way in
&gt;testing and the spec.
&gt;  
&gt;
Now, here we do have a testing issue as well as spec problem and we should discuss this in the taskforce right away. I would categorize these two issues under the same umbrella: when to flow-through/flow-around markup. In other words, there are some nodes that should be considered/ignored for tokenization and querying and that might alter the semantics of some of the operators defined in the spec. You have a valid point about FTIgnoreOption. For example, Can a bold markup, which is not a word breaker and therefor ignored by the tokenizer,   be considered as part of the search context (i.e. allowing the search to be restricted to bolded nodes only)?

I propose to have the capabilities to

    * Ignore tags in a particular namespace (e.g. XHTML namespace)
    * Declare tags as delimiters for word, sentence and paragraphs.</thetext>
  </long_desc><long_desc isprivate="0" >
    <commentid>12922</commentid>
    <comment_count>1</comment_count>
    <who name="Joaquin Delgado">joaquin.delgado</who>
    <bug_when>2006-11-13 21:37:26 +0000</bug_when>
    <thetext>We agreed at the F2F to leave this completely implementation defined</thetext>
  </long_desc>
      
      

    </bug>

</bugzilla>